Hi Bas, On 31/03/2021 20:20, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote: > On 3/31/21 7:30 PM, Lee Garrett wrote: >> Unfortunately 2.10 didn't make it into bullseye in time (#984557). I tried >> getting the unit tests from 2.9.16 to work with python 3.9, but I had to give >> up. I don't feel comfortable with maintaining such a large package over the >> lifecycle of bullseye without unit tests, official py3.9 support, and >> security >> support running out in a few months, so please remove ansible from bullseye. > > Shipping bullseye without ansible is going to make many users unhappy. > > Will you actively maintain the package in bullseye-backports instead?
Up until now Pierre-Elliott Bécue has provided versions for backports, and I'm happy to regulary upload ansible to backports, too. However, ansible has a somewhat active deprecation cycle for modules/features, meaning that backports users will be forced to adapt their playbooks and roles with every feature release to avoid breakage. Adding to this, there have been times where ansible in testing/unstable was broken for a while due to moving python packages (the month long breakage due to jinja2 which broke templating in many ansible modules comes to mind). So I don't think those users who have previously depended on ansible from stable will be happy with using ansible from backports. I can only say that I screwed up the migration process due to making a few wrong assumptions about the finer details of the freeze process, and I'm somewhat embarrassed about causing the release team additional work. I had been working on packaging ansible 2.10 since December, and my intention was to get ansible 2.10 into bullseye. Had I known what I know now, I would have set my personal deadline differently, or raised the issue with the release team earlier. Those things said, I agree with Raphaël that ansible 2.10 is a good fit for bullseye, and I'd maintain it over the life cycle of our next release if the release team chooses to unblock it. Kind regards, Lee
